Evaluation of early imaging response criteria in glioblastoma multiforme

Radiation Oncology

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2011, Pages

  Gladwish, Adam ^a,b   Koh, Eng Siew ^c,d   Hoisak, Jeremy ^a,b   Lockwood, Gina ^b   Millar, Barbara Ann ^b   Mason, Warren ^a   Yu, Eugene ^b   Laperriere, Normand J ^b   Ménard, Cynthia ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b PRINCESS MARGARET HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^c LIVERPOOL HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^d UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

Glioblastoma Multiforme; Imaging response; Radiotherapy; RECIST

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; EARLY RADIOLOGIC PROGRESSION; FEMALE; GLIOBLASTOMA; HUMAN; MALE; NEUROIMAGING; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROGRESSION FREE SURVIVAL; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; TREATMENT RESPONSE; TUMOR VOLUME; VOLUMETRY; ALGORITHM; BRAIN TUMOR; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DISEASE COURSE; IMAGE PROCESSING; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RADIOTHERAPY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

AGED; ALGORITHMS; BRAIN NEOPLASMS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DISEASE PROGRESSION; FEMALE; GLIOBLASTOMA; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RADIOTHERAPY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 80053174161     PISSN: None     EISSN: 1748717X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-6-121     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Macdonald DR, Cascino TL, Schold SC, Cairncross JG. Response criteria for phase II studies of supratentorial malignant glioma. J Clin Oncol 1990, 8(7):1277-80.
2. WHO handbook for reporting results of cancer treatment. Geneva (Switzerland) 1979,
3. Perry JR, Cairncross JG. Glioma therapies: how to tell which work?. J Clin Oncol 2003, 21(19):3547-9. 10.1200/JCO.2003.05.885, 12913102.
4. Suzuki C, Jacobsson H, Hatschek T, Torkzad MR, Boden K, Eriksson-Alm Y, et al. Radiologic measurements of tumor response to treatment: practical approaches and limitations. Radiographics 2008, 28(2):329-44. 10.1148/rg.282075068, 18349443.
5. van den Bent MJ, Vogelbaum MA, Wen PY, Macdonald DR, Chang SM. End point assessment in gliomas: novel treatments limit usefulness of classical Macdonald's Criteria. J Clin Oncol 2009, 27(18):2905-8. 10.1200/JCO.2009.22.4998, 2702230, 19451418.
6. Ruben JD, Dally M, Bailey M, Smith R, McLean CA, Fedele P. Cerebral radiation necrosis: incidence, outcomes, and risk factors with emphasis on radiation parameters and chemotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006, 65(2):499-508. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.12.002, 16517093.
7. Brandes AA, Franceschi E, Tosoni A, Blatt V, Pession A, Tallini G, et al. MGMT promoter methylation status can predict the incidence and outcome of pseudoprogression after concomitant radiochemotherapy in newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients. J Clin Oncol 2008, 26(13):2192-7. 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.8163, 18445844.
8. Taal W, Brandsma D, de Bruin HG, Bromberg JE, Swaak-Kragten AT, Smitt PA, et al. Incidence of early pseudo-progression in a cohort of malignant glioma patients treated with chemoirradiation with temozolomide. Cancer 2008, 113(2):405-10. 10.1002/cncr.23562, 18484594.
9. Brandsma D, Stalpers L, Taal W, Sminia P, van den Bent MJ. Clinical features, mechanisms, and management of pseudoprogression in malignant gliomas. Lancet Oncol 2008, 9(5):453-61. 10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70125-6, 18452856.
10. Gonzalez J, Kumar AJ, Conrad CA, Levin VA. Effect of bevacizumab on radiation necrosis of the brain. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007, 67(2):323-6. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.10.010, 17236958.
11. Henson JW, Ulmer S, Harris GJ. Brain tumor imaging in clinical trials. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008, 29(3):419-24. 10.3174/ajnr.A0963, 18272557.
12. Lang FF, Gilbert MR, Puduvalli VK, Weinberg J, Levin VA, Yung WK, et al. Toward better early-phase brain tumor clinical trials: a reappraisal of current methods and proposals for future strategies. Neuro Oncol 2002, 4(4):268-77. 1920662, 12356357.
13. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000, 92(3):205-16. 10.1093/jnci/92.3.205, 10655437.
14. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumors: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009, 45(2):228-47. 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026, 19097774.
15. Wen PY, Macdonald DR, Reardon DA, van den Bent MJ, Chang SM, et al. Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group. J Clin Oncol 2010, 28(11):1963-1972. 10.1200/JCO.2009.26.3541, 20231676.
16. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988, 44:837-845. 10.2307/2531595, 3203132.
17. Lamborn KR, Yung WK, Chang SM, Wen PY, Cloughesy TF, DeAngelis LM, et al. Progression-free survival: an important end point in evaluating therapy for recurrent high-grade gliomas. Neuro Oncol 2008, 10(2):162-70. 10.1215/15228517-2007-062, 2613818, 18356283.
18. Shankar LK, Van den AA, Yap J, Benjamin R, Scheutze S, FitzGerald TJ. Considerations for the use of imaging tools for phase II treatment trials in oncology. Clin Cancer Res 2009, 15(6):1891-7. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-2030, 19276276.
19. Shah S, Kesari S, Xu R, Batchelor T, O'Neill A, Hochberg F, Levy B, Bradshaw J, Wen P. Comparison of linear and volumetric criteria in assessing tumor response in adult high-grade gliomas. Neuro Onc 2006, 8:38-46.
20. Galanis E, Buckner JC, Maurer MJ, Sykora R, Castillo R, Ballman KV, Erickson BJ. Validation of neuroradiologic response assessment in gliomas: Measurement by RECIST, two-dimensional, computer-assisted tumor area, and computer-assisted tumor volume methods. Neuoro Onc 2006, 8(2):156-65.
21. Sorensen AG, Batchelor TT, Wen PY, Zhang WT, Jain RK. Response criteria for glioma. Nat Clin Prac Onc 2008, 11(5):634-44.
22. Roldán GB, Scot JN, Hamilton MG, Easaw JC, et al. Population-based study of pseudoprogression after chemotadiotherapy in GBM. Can J Neurol Sci 2009, 36:617-22.
23. Sanghera P, Perry J, Davey P, Tsao MN, et al. Pseudoprogression following chemotadiotherapy for glioblastoma multiforme. Can J Neurol Sci 2010, 37:36-42.
24. Gerstner ER, McNamara MB, Norden AD, LaFrankie D, Wen PY. Effect of adding temozolomide to radiation therapy on the incidence of pseudo-progression. J Neuroncol 2009, 94:97-101.
25. Provenzale JM, Mukundan S, Barboriak DP. Diffusion-weighted and perfusion MR imaging for brain tumor characterization and assessment of treatment response. Radiology 2006, 239(3):632-49. 10.1148/radiol.2393042031, 16714455.
26. Cao Y, Tsien CI, Nagesh V, Junck L, Ten HR, Ross BD, et al. Survival prediction in high-grade gliomas by MRI perfusion before and during early stage of RT [corrected]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006, 64(3):876-85. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.09.001, 16298499.
27. Chang S, Clarke J, Wen PY. Novel Imaging Response Assessment for Drug Therapies in Recurrent Malignant Glioma. J Clin Onc 2009, 107-11.
28. Park I, Tamai G, Lee MC, Chuang CF, Chang SM, Berger MS, et al. Patterns of recurrence analysis in newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme after three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy with respect to pre-radiation therapy magnetic resonance spectroscopic findings. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007, 69(2):381-9. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.03.019, 2377157, 17513061.
29. Hamstra A, Chenevert T, Moffat B, et al. Evaluation of the functional diffusion map as an early biomarker of time-to-progression and overall survival in high-grade glioma. Proc Nat Acad Scien 2005, 102(46):16759-64.
30. Hamstra DA, Galbán CJ, Chenevert TL, et al. Functional diffusion map as an early imaging biomarker for high-grade glioma: correlation with conventional radiologic response and overall survival. J Clin Oncol 2008, 26:3387-94. 10.1200/JCO.2007.15.2363, 18541899.
31. Chenevert TL, Stegman LD, Taylor JM, et al. Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging: An early surrogate marker of therapeutic efficacy in brain tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000, 92:2029-36. 10.1093/jnci/92.24.2029, 11121466.
32. Provenzale JM, York G, Serajuddin H, et al. Correlation of relative permeability and relative cerebral blood volume in high-grade cerebral neoplasms. Am J Roentgenol 2006, 187:1036-42.
33. Bian W, Khayal IS, Nelson SJ, et al. Multiparametric characterization of grade 2 glioma subtypes using magnetic resonance spectroscopic, perfusion and diffusion imaging. Transl Oncol 2009, 2:271-80. 2781083, 19956389.
34. Tsien C, Galbán C, Chenevert T, et al. Parametric Response Map As an Imaging Biomarker to Distinguish Progression From Pseudoprogression in High-Grade Glioma. J Clin Oncol 2010, 28:2293-2299. 10.1200/JCO.2009.25.3971, 2860441, 20368564.
35. Larson SM, Schwartz LH. 18F-FDG PET as a candidate for "qualified biomarker": functional assessment of treatment response in oncology. J Nucl Med 2006, 47(6):901-3.
36. Backes H, Ullrich R, Jacobs AH, et al. Noninvasive quantification of (18)F-FLT human brain PET for the assessment of tumour proliferation in patients with high-grade glioma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009, 26:1960-67.
37. Stupp R, Mason WP, van den Bent MJ, et al. Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 2005, 352:987-996. 10.1056/NEJMoa043330, 15758009.